When I attempt the fraught task of putting self to paper this census, I'll be muttering an aimless prayer before reluctantly crossing 'no religion'.

But please, don't read too much into it. It tells you what I'm not and nothing more.

Nevertheless, I fear my X may be hijacked for irreligious - that is, anti-religious - purposes.

This I speculate because the 'no religion' response has found its champion in the Atheist Foundation of Australia.

We heretics are urged to own our disbelief; to resist the hilarity of professing Jedi or Pastafarianism - or my favourite jest religion, metal music - and forsake the ritual of deferring to the faith of our parents.

This in itself is, of course, admirable. The decline of religion - or otherwise - should be properly documented. What's the point of a census if it's not answered honestly?

And so I'll do my part.

But the Atheist Foundation's aim is to "take religion out of politics". Precisely what this means is left vague, but it nevertheless implies advocacy on my behalf, and it is with this that I'm uncomfortable.

I'm concerned that 'no religion' - indeed, atheism itself - means something very different to the foundation than it does to me.

I consider myself an atheist because my personal holy book - the dictionary - says I am. That is simply, I don't believe in God.

I'm also an agnostic because I stop short of saying, definitively, God does not exist.

And that's it. There's nothing more to add.

This doesn't enlighten you to my opinion of religion or its disciples; nor does it inform you of my politics; indeed, it doesn't tell you much, at all.

But the term 'atheism' has been granted meaning far beyond its dictionary definition and has come to represent hostility towards religion and a smarter-than-thou arrogance.

This is in large part due to the ardent enthusiasm of New Atheism, and specifically, the Four Horsemen of the Anti-Apocalypse as the AFA refers to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett (who will all be headlining the AFA's 2012 Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne).

For Dawkins, religious belief is to blame for terrorism.

"Even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes," he writes in The God Delusion.

"...Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people.

"...The take home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism – as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion."

Dawkins also believes raising a child to believe in hell is mental abuse, and that science and religion are inexorably at war.

Hitchens prefers the moniker antitheist to atheist. His book God Is Not Great describes religion as "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children".

Harris, meanwhile, thinks religious belief is suggestive of mental illness and perpetuates "man's inhumanity to man"; "The very ideal of religious tolerance - born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God - is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss," he writes in The End of Faith.

I disagree with these sentiments, and especially the manner in which they're expressed, but it's not my objective to debate them here.

It's enough to say that these sentiments are adjuncts to atheism; neither are they shared by most of the atheists I know.

Atheism (and its sub-category agnosticism) is an especially broad church, encompassing the above Four Horsemen as well as Prime Minister Julia Gillard and conservative columnist Andrew Bolt, both of whom have expressed admiration for religious values.

It is telling that the Atheism Foundation of Australia was initially called the Rationalist Association of SA. It doesn't speak for all atheists. It speaks for a particular kind.

And besides, 'no religion' by no means equates to disbelief in god. A person may feel no allegiance to any organised religion but nevertheless believe in a god or gods.

Or perhaps they don't believe in a god but nevertheless believe in the supernatural, or spirituality, or reincarnation, or karma, or the paranormal, or heaven and hell, or any number of alternatives.

Or perhaps they just don't know what they believe, or haven't given it enough thought.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia should be aware of their strange bedfellows in the 'no religion' category and resist the temptation to use its number beyond its meaning.

The 'no religion' box belongs to the unspoken for. Let's keep it that way.

Honest Johnnie:

Mo:

Brettah:

09 Aug 2011 7:51:37pm

No, that is not what it means.

The term, coined by Thomas Huxley in the 1800s, refers to the opinion that knowledge of otherworldly beings cannot be known. The position means "I believe that we cannot know", not "I don't know" or "I'm not sure".

In that sense, Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive with Atheism. I actually ascribe to both labels:

I am an atheist because I lack belief in a god. I am also an Agnostic, because I believe that it cannot be known whether there actually are supernatural beings outside of our sphere of observation.

Tim:

09 Aug 2011 6:20:06pm

But agnosticism is not a religious view, it is a view on the possibility that a particular claim can be substantiated by evidence. One can be an agnostic theist (i.e. someone who believes in a god but does not think you can ever know for sure), an agnostic atheist (i.e. as before but does not believe there is a god), a gnostic theist (i.e. a believer who thinks you can know for sure that there is a god) or an gnostic atheist (i.e. a non-believer who thinks you can know for sure that there is no god).

This is not pedantry, just a reminder that words do mean things and the label 'agnostic' has been incorrectly used to mean 'undecided' for far too long.

MC:

Jeremy:

09 Aug 2011 12:41:47pm

Michael doesn't it bother you that our federal government is planning on spending $200 million on having chaplains in schools, or that we have untrained evangelical Christians preaching Christianity in public primary schools as "scripture education?"

Hyphen:

09 Aug 2011 1:50:22pm

Did you not read the following?

"This doesn't enlighten you to my opinion of religion or its disciples; nor does it inform you of my politics; indeed, it doesn't tell you much, at all. [...] I disagree with these sentiments, and especially the manner in which they're expressed, but it's not my objective to debate them here."

He is not debating that topic in this missive. Ask him to write another piece, if you like.

I think that topics as heated as religion & politics need to be pulled apart and debated piecemeal, as we find we may agree on some aspects of a topic but not others, and debating a homogenous lump is not helpful.

(Kinda like Michael's main point about not wanting to be lumped in with other connotations of "atheist" - ya think?)

I think I think:

09 Aug 2011 4:29:17pm

Michael truly doesn't understand what atheism is. Nor do the atheists he knows. You cannot sit on the fence, either you do not believe in deities, or you believe anywhere from a little bit to a lot in them. If he doesn't want to be lumped with atheists, then its simple - don't identify as one.

He may not be debating that topic, but he took a sucker punch at Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris before running away.

thelad:

Dan:

09 Aug 2011 7:53:09pm

Oh it's still for the religious. The positive assertion that there is no deity has as much merit as the positive assertion that there is. Extraordinary claims may require extraordinary evidence, but no true rationalist would argue that there is definitively no god.

Neilly G:

The Observer:

09 Aug 2011 1:57:57pm

I haven't yet finalised my opinion of the chaplain issue, so I won't comment on that.

However, scripture classes have traditionally been taught by volunteers in public and state schools across NSW and Qld (the only states for which I can speak); it doesn't seem to have spelt the end of the world. Neither does it appear particularly to have buttressed Christianity.

What scripture teaching does do, though, is provide children with a little background into: the heritage of Western civilisation; the moral basis of our legal system; and the inspiration of much classical music, art, and literature (much of the 'Western canon' cannot properly be understood without a grounding in Scripture).

Rather than some sinister form of indoctrination, I see scripture classes as adding to a well-rounded education.

EssJay (The Original):

Access Ministries has defended its staff working in public schools after earlier urging Christians to "make disciples" out of school children.

ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: The Victorian and Federal governments have both launched inquiries after it was revealed, on the ABC, that the head of a religious education group was urging evangelical Christians to "make disciples" out of school children.

James Bennett reports.

JAMES BENNETT, REPORTER: ACCESS Ministries CEO, Evonne Paddison, is yet to respond to the furore over her 2008 speech, aired last night on the ABC, urging senior evangelicals to make school children "disciples.

EVONNE PADDISON, CEO, ACCESS MINISTRIES: We have a God-given open door to children and young people with the gospel. Our Federal and State Governments allow us to take the Christian faith into schools and share it. We need to go and make disciples.

hugh mungus:

09 Aug 2011 3:37:21pm

The approved role of chaplains in schools does not include preaching, nor "scripture education". If you have real evidence of a chaplains doing thses things you should complain to the principal of the school. If you don't have real evidence, don't make false claims.

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 6:35:22pm

Yes, they're intended as a quasi-religious fig-leaf to try to slow the steadily increasing drift of parents and children out of Government schools and to try to prevent it from turning into a stampede.

Tomas M:

09 Aug 2011 12:50:16pm

It seems as if you object to being a 'tool' of the AFA, but im not sure that the AFA's goal of removing 'religion from politics' is actually all that alien to you.

To do so means nothing more then to preserve our secular society - this is not 'hostility' or a 'smarter than thou' attitude - it is a commitment to the division of religion and politics, hard won, that has been an integral part of our transition to modern, prosperous societies.

Consider for a moment those societies whose laws and institutions are still dominated by religious decrees - islamic nations in particular such as Pakistan or Egypt - and the barbarism that can prevail under the cloak of religious orthodoxy.

The AFA might not seem your cup of tea and their message more suited to a less progressive society, but the message itself is sound

Ford:

09 Aug 2011 1:52:17pm

Arguably atheism and secularism are philosophical movements like any other religion....secularism less so perhaps, but the hardcore Atheists wanting to convert everyone else to non-believers are no different from any other religious extremist.Given we actively push religion on students at public schools, swear an oath to G-d in Parliament and spend millions on visiting (Christian) dignitaries...I'd say the hard fought battle to divide religion and politics has been lost.

hendrikus:

Suzanne:

09 Aug 2011 3:30:43pm

Thanks Hendrikus. This is all so boring and predictable - the usual suspects coming out and lecturing atheists that we are really just adhering to another religion. It is really very simple: I do not believe in god. That's it. In fact, I do not believe in anything supernatural. If evidence were available, I would reconsider. But there is no evidence, and I will not (cannot) force myself to believe because of societal pressure to conform.

Neilly G:

dean:

09 Aug 2011 7:48:03pm

Not wanting to be argumentative, I do believe in God & I believe there is evidence all around, its more how its interpreted, for me its with faith. There are a fair few Christian scientists around also.....good on you for sticking to what you believe(or have been convinced of)

hugh mungus:

09 Aug 2011 3:56:42pm

What a poor analogy. Atheism is not automatically a religion - a 'passive' atheist would certainly not be called religious. In the same way, one can believe in God, and even be a follower of Christ, and still not be religious.

However, the fervour with which people like Dawkins pursue their atheist agenda it is at least equal to that displayed by evangelical Christians or fundamentalist Moslems. This 'active' atheism takes on all the ugly aspects of fundamentalist reiligion. No stone is left unturned, no opportunity wasted, to belittle and ridicule people of faith. Their attempts to convert people from their faith to atheism certainly borders on the fanatical. Dawkins is even willing to discard the scientific principles he supposedly espouses to score points against Christians.

Jeremy C:

09 Aug 2011 8:09:43pm

John Lennox, professor of mathematics at Oxford and who is a christian, has publicly debated Dawkins and in his book God's Undertaker points out that Dawkins has stated that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe (a very reasonable statement) but but he believes that one day there will be a naturalistic explanation for it - this is faith not a scientific approach requiring evidence.

Furthermore on page 194 of his book Lennox recounts how after their debate at Oxford at a press conference Dawkins was pressed by a journalist about his statement during the debate that he did not need to resort to magic to explain the universe. Dawkins replied that he believed the universe could have just appeared from nothing. "Magic?" the journailst said. Afterwards the journalist recounts that Dawkins told her that an explanation for the universe in terms of little green men made more sense than postulating a creator.

That is just one example of where Dawkins actively discards scientific principles and dangeroulsy veers towards dogma.

Yolanda :

09 Aug 2011 7:57:40pm

What an outrageous comment! Have you seen Dawkins setting up buildings dedicated to atheism? Have you seen him try to attract large followings with promises of goodies to come? There is no comparison at all between Dawkins and fanatical religious zealots. I agree that there is far too much name calling but to say that Dawkins is the same as those 'Christians' in the USA who attend funerals of dead USA service men and women and carry placards saying it serves them right because the USA allows homosexuality to be legal is just off the planet. And to say that Dawkins is the same as Islamic fundamentalists who strap bombs to children and disabled young women is just obscene. Dawkins has a point of view which he obviously thinks is right and he publishes books on it. And he speaks at conferences and so on which he is invited to. He does not head up a 'movement' and ask people to join and then set out to manipulate and deliberately physically and psychologically harm others.

schneids:

Someone:

Jeremy C:

09 Aug 2011 8:15:53pm

I really like the double standards in this comment, if someone with some sort of religious affiliation does something wrong its them being told to do it by their religion but if an atheist does somethign wrong its always somethign else, ideologies etc and in this caseSomeone manages to twist it back to the cncept of religion - wonderful twisted logic!

Steve:

09 Aug 2011 1:14:19pm

Exactly. It's a loaded question. I don't have a religion. I have a complex spirituality that is designed for just one person. I'm seriously considering not even filling the thing out, or at least filling it full of complete crap.

Suz:

Poppy:

09 Aug 2011 1:40:38pm

I agree that the question is too simplistic. I believe in god but do not follow a religion. I believe there is much that is wonderful as well as much that is terrible in the major world religions. I think the arguments of Hitchens and co are naive and simplistic (much like fundamentalist religion really). I support the separation of church and state and do not support the chaplains in schools program.

Whether these opinions are right, sensible or coherent is quite beside the point. The point is that while ticking 'no religion' might support the separation of church and state, census outcomes are used in all sorts of ways and to support all sorts of views. Ticking 'no religion' might assist in the separation argument, but gives a false picture of the actual views of many Australians.

atomou:

09 Aug 2011 2:17:31pm

The AFA is not, nor should it be interested in whether you believe in fairies or fools. It is a census about the physicality of the nation, rather than its morality, spirituality or views on a million other issues. Should it also ask our personal views on refugees, immigration, carbon tax?

Poppy:

09 Aug 2011 5:11:33pm

Fair enough, and I don't disagree. But then why ask the religion question at all? That is fundamentally a question about belief, rather than a 'physicality' question such as number of children, highest level of education and so on. My point was that if they are going to ask questions about belief at all, then they should be asked in a way that allows a reasonable variety of responses.

Fratelli:

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 6:40:57pm

Not at all."religion&#8194; &#8194;/r&#618;&#712;l&#618;d&#658;&#601;n/ noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. "

ForSure:

Greg W:

Or maybe they should just ask what politicians and lobby groups will infer they are actually asking with this question?

"Do you support religious organisations that aren't not-for-profit community aid organisations being tax exempt?"

"Do you think that religious groups should be allowed access and funding to proselytise to children in state schools or should the schools be provided with people with actual qualifications in counseling to provide care to children instead?"

That is what the census is about. Working out how to spend public funding.

Antix:

09 Aug 2011 3:36:40pm

...and that public funding accounts for over $30 Billion in exemptions & grants annually, or about 8.5% of the tax revenue collected by the 3 tiers of government in Australia ie about $3,000 for every tax payer (atheists and religious alike).

simplyblack:

But practically speaking, if the government were to stop subsidising them and instead pay public servants to do the charity work that the churches do - it would cost a heck of a lot more than $30billion per year. Because people are more likely to volunteer for charity work through a group they already belong to - like their local church.

They have tried to separate the churches from the charities in the US to some extent, and it has failed dismally. Imagine what our society would be like without the Salvation Army, Anglicare, St Vincet de Paul, etc.

JohnnoH:

09 Aug 2011 2:47:31pm

I have no problem with the question. In fact it is a very fair and valid question in a muliculutural society. There is a lot of religious intolerance in Australia, but on the other hand we are not that stupid as to put anyone down or threaten violence against anyone because of his belief, hope and faith.

lisa_dp:

xyz:

09 Aug 2011 3:25:01pm

Totally agree. I know plenty of people who shudder at the thought of describing themselves as "atheists", but who have utterly no interest in established religions. There must be far more variability within the group of people ticking "No Religion" than there is in all the people selecting the other boxes.

J:

09 Aug 2011 12:56:57pm

I'm afraid you may have missed the point. The AFA aren't talking (at least with regards to the census) about removing religion from the country, but from politics - from public education, from our public hospitals (and I live in Canberra, where access to women's health services is impeded by the fact that two of the three "public" hospitals are part of Catholic hospitals) and human rights - issues like gay marriage - none of which should be vehicles for a declining religion that is still treated like a universal basis for Australian culture. Remember all the kerfuffle over ethics classes in NSW schools? Providing non-religious alternatives to religious education should be a no-brainer, and yet...

I will be marking no religion tonight. I don't care about other people's beliefs, but I don't want ostensible majority belief to be used to justify Christianity's continuing interference in Australian politics.

Ecologist:

09 Aug 2011 3:45:59pm

The government does not provide religiously specific food...if a particular religion with particular food requirements is prevalent in the area, an enterprising business person will open a store that provides what os required and it will thrive. The government is not in the business of building sites of worship or providing religious services, the logical processes of supply and demand take care of these.

Fred:

Anderson:

Sorry but you are incorrect on one big point there. It is not atheists who are being anti-religious and so-on but some (not all) established churches demonising atheists as being hostile to religion.

Similar instances throughout history and the modern day included demonising heretics, pagans, infidels, heathens, apostates and so generally everyone who doesn't bow to the most powerful religion of the land.

Please give credit (and blame) where it is due. Those churches are saying the usual that atheists are anti-religious evil baby-eting satan worshiping monsters...but the atheists are merely saying "please leave us alone?"

I am an atheist and wouldn't even have made this reply if you hadn't brought the topic up and called-out atheists as being anti-religious in your article.

lillyvalley:

09 Aug 2011 1:20:12pm

What's this nonsense about baby-eating satan worshipping monsters?My local catholic church supports a couple of refugee sudanese families. My friend's life was saved in a remote South American Adventist hospital, her brother found the door to the Salvos open when he was ready to overdose. There were no non-religious options in any of these situations.I hope the atheist convention has a wing to help others. Can I come knocking on the doors of the "no religion" when life turns nasty?

Anderson:

That's the sort of characterisation I face on a regular basis from the more outspoken anti-atheist churches. They tend to be the anti-gay ones too so I catch a double dose from them.

It's a sharp contrast to my Christian friends who don't consider atheist-bashing to be a core Christian principle.

The discrepancy is quite interesting in a way.

But as I said to the author, it's not the atheists being anti-religious and initiating the dispute, it always starts with someone (like the author) taking a swipe at atheists and forcing atheists to defend their reputations from the slander and demonising they just received.

But it is important not to lump all religious people in with the intolerant atheist hating jerks, isn't it?

Stephen:

Janette:

09 Aug 2011 2:14:45pm

lillyvalley, you may find that behind these 'religious' organisations there are atheists like myself contributing money to keep them functioning, week after week, month after month, year after year. It ain't only bible thumpers who care about those in need.

brett:

BK:

09 Aug 2011 2:19:08pm

How about 'Oxfam' or 'Medecins Sans Frontieres'? The religious have no monopoly on good and ethical work... Secular organisations like these also don't oppose the use of condoms in African countries riddled with HIV. The Catholic Church (your argument) falls down a little in this regard, I'm afraid...

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 4:59:49pm

Actually you'll find in Africa there is an inverse relationship between the proportion of Catholics in a country and the rate of HIV/AIDS. In fact as has been shown the promotion of condoms as the primary dfeence against AIDS has only increased AIDS rates in those African countries where it has been used . Regardless of whether you agree with the Church's doctrine that using condoms is unethical, you can't deny that the Church's activities in Africa have reduced AIDS.

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 5:02:50pm

You are displaying your ignorance of the history of these organisations. The other three were founded by Catholics. All were founded specifically on Christian principles and to put Christianity into practice.

Greg W:

09 Aug 2011 5:53:34pm

Amnesty International:

British lawyer Peter Benenson launches a worldwide campaign, Appeal for Amnesty 1961, with the publication of an article in the Observer newspaper. The article, The Forgotten Prisoners, is written after he learns of two Portuguese students who were imprisoned for raising a toast to freedom. Reprinted in newspapers across the world, his appeal marks the beginning of Amnesty International.

The first international meeting is held in July, with delegates from Belgium, the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the USA. They decide to establish "a permanent international movement in defence of freedom of opinion and religion".

Hmmm still no religion mentioned except the fact he believed you should be free to practice whatever you want.

Matt:

09 Aug 2011 3:11:23pm

Would that be the same Sudanese Catholic Church that preaches hate at homosexuals, that denies women rights and promotes poverty by preventing contraception? Are those the same adventists that took small pox into the depths of the Amazon with their missionary zeal?

There are good intentions in many religions and I doubt humanity would have come this far without religion, but they only tend to work well within cultural groups. Now that the world is coming ever more interconnected, it is religion that still fundamentally divides us. More Atheism/Agnostisism for a better world.

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 3:36:35pm

I've been in hundreds of Catholic churches and met many thousands of Catholcis all over teh world but I've never heard of any Catholic preaching hatred of homosexuals, denying women rights or preventing contraception. People in deeveloping countries WANT to have children, they don't want contraception but rich white racists just don't get it, or refuse to see it.

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 4:30:46pm

By all means do your best to try to find any instance of Cd Pell or the pope preaching against homosexuals, reproductive rights or womens rights, but you won't be able to find any. In fact those two have frequently preached strongly in favour of all three rights.

psyclaw:

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 5:48:16pm

Everybody who actively and publicly professes and promotes beliefs seriously contradictory to Catholicism, and/or has committed what the Catholic Church classifies as a serious sin and has not confessed it, is refused participation in the Eucharist at any Catholic church. The vast majority of such people are not "gay". This is nothing to do with supposedly preaching hatred of anybody. Those who make that false accusation display their own hatred.

DanD:

09 Aug 2011 4:37:21pm

Are you for real Ronk? The vatican, the pinnacle of catholic churches preaches that homosexuals will burn in hell, sodomy is an abomination in the eyes of god; they deny women the right to preach as a priest would, and they specifically said for decades that giving condoms to African nations was against god's will. Do some research mate, there's a trove of articles on the subject, you can find them on this new fangled invention called the internet. Rich white racists invented it, but poor black hippies are able to input stories too

psyclaw:

Roy:

09 Aug 2011 5:02:20pm

A significant number of atheists have supported World Vision in the past.Many still do.However, after some recent derogatory remarks by a few miserable Christian clergy, I for one feel more comfortable supporting Medecins Sans Frontiere.Bandages don't have to come with Bible classes attached.

Jimbo:

Others have arlready pointed out the folly of your argument so I'll stick to the irrelevance of it in this context.

There is nothing about ticking the no-religion box that prevents people from contributing or receiving services from religious charities.

I raised over 300 last year for st Vincent de Paul Ireland (I am an Australian ex pat living in Ireland) and matched all of those donations myself bringing it to a total of 600. I do this annually. I am an AFA member, an Atheist Ireland member, an atheist, agnostic and an anti-theist.

I wanted to help people affected by flood, frost and the rising unemployment and considered donating to SVP to be the best way I could contribute. The fact that I ticked "no religion" census form this year won't stop me raising money for SVP next year.

what the:

09 Aug 2011 1:23:11pm

Yep, a quick search through the history books will quickly show where the anti has been coming from. And whilst Dawkin's views can be extreme, it is tantamount to tell children that if they do wrong they'll burn in hell for eternity (eternity is a long time). Dont smack em, but threats of eternal damnation, well that's ok cause jesus said so...

Believe what you like people, but dont try and shove your morals down my throat, i'm quite happy knowing you'll think I'll burn in hell if you're Christian or I wont die with a thousand virgins if I'm not Islamic, I'm quite comfortable with that because it didn't bother me the first few billion years.

Yolanda:

09 Aug 2011 1:31:47pm

I agree Anderson. I am an atheist but that doesn't prevent me from having respect for some religious people and enjoyment of religious ceremonies. I also recognise and support some ideas of some branches of different religions. I have though deep fear and try to avoid at all costs religious organisations and people who would label me in the most horrific way possible and would not hesitate before doing me real physical harm (possibly not in Australia but certainly in the USA and in some Islamic countries). I agree that the census does not give much room to people like me who want to cherry pick at religion and still declare for atheism but overall I cannot believe in any type of god and that needs to be said first. I will be writing in to the ABS to ask for the forms to be adjusted to reflect a more rounded description of an atheist.

Matt:

09 Aug 2011 2:56:54pm

I grew up in a regular church-going Baptist family and for my first 13 or so years was genuinely fearful of atheists.

Now I am an atheist, but I do at least now understand that religions are under selection in much that same way a genes are - and so religions cannot help but tend towards certain self-sustaining traits. Attempting to reduce the exposure of their members to the outside world and fearmongering about alternative ideas are just two of these traits.

Matthew:

09 Aug 2011 4:38:03pm

Yes, exactly. Religion is just another meme striving for survival much the same way genes work under natural selection, and like genes, the meme of religion is more suited under particular environments then others - usually in poor, uneducated regions where human suffering is a constant theme.

persep:

09 Aug 2011 7:55:41pm

Actually, I *am* anti-religious. And the more they (the religious) demonize and vilify the likes of me (atheists), whilst demanding so many special rights and privileges for themselves, the more hostile I get....

And just in case someone's lining up for a winge about "vilifying" religion, I don't think that can even be possible [/snark]

John:

Sunny:

I am really pleased that someone has touched on this subject, indeed I was hoping for that.

Filling out the Census form was a breeze, except for this issue. Religion. I found the options limited, incomplete.

I don't belong with, or accept any organized religion, yet I do believe in God in the spiritual sense. Practically, that would put me in a category referred to as Pagan, a term that's intentionally misrepresented by the churches, but not given an opportunity in the Census choices.

Reluctantly, I marked "no religion" as technically correct, yet it does not reflect on the realities that's meant to be recorded for statistical purposes.

dick hall:

09 Aug 2011 1:02:08pm

Try reading the book that was on the NY Times Top Ten bestseller for 91 weeks called "Conversations With God". Surprisingly it is not mainly about religion, but having read it three times I have opened my mind. I feel yours needs broadening too. As human beings we tend to envisage God as a person, but surprise, surprise, it is more than that. You could say it's another realm but some might say what a load of BS. In trying to explain what God is or isn't , is as difficult to describe to an ant what an elephant is.As the old axiom says, when the student is ready the teacher will appear.

I think I think:

09 Aug 2011 4:50:41pm

Semantics, really. People need to construct a view of the world. Religious people use imagination to fill in the gaps of their knowledge. Atheists leave the gaps until such time as they can fill them with reality.

Matthew:

09 Aug 2011 5:02:45pm

You mean political, not religious. The atheists who aren't particular fans of religion are political and want secularism to be properly represented - and no there is nothing 'fundamentalist' about that either.

Sassyandra:

Dale Anderson:

09 Aug 2011 2:58:26pm

Religion, by definition, is a mainstream organisation. If you have a unique belief then put it down. Most people who state they belong to the 'Jedi' religion are mucking around and it is these people that the Atheist foundation is asking to be serious so a more reflective representation of the community can be gained.

doug:

09 Aug 2011 4:13:12pm

Dale, I am a Pastafarian, and not mucking around (see the official website 'about' page for my belief system- Bobby has me pretty much pegged); but if I list it in 'other', t'will be coded as no response, and the impression of a 'religious' Australia increased by one. Hence I will be marking 'No religion' to prevent misuse of my taxes.

I think I think:

Matthew:

09 Aug 2011 5:17:55pm

I'd say the Jedi way of life would be nicely categorized as a religion, and a belief yes, any less valid then another? Compared to other religions it would rate the same - invalid. The way I look at it, religious belief is always protected to some extent, thus often excluded from genuine scrutiny and debate and somehow that is allowing the ideas of religion to get a free pass. It isn't fair nor rational to expect a philosopher or scientist, for example, to have to prove their theories correct under peer-review, etc, but not the same regarding religious belief.

Timinane:

09 Aug 2011 1:03:49pm

Like me you are considered non-religious.

Like Gillard and Bolt I like some ideas in the bible.

Marking Catholic or Anglican basically means you assign yourselves to a set system of beliefs which those who head the churches will say is the same as theirs and will be used for their purposes as heads of those establishments.

Getting atheists to agree is like herding cats as we are all different most of the ones I meet a secularists who don't like the influence the churches are having on our rights despite us being the 3rd sizeable grouping possibly even 2nd largest grouping if I combine the no response group with non-religious.

If we let people believe and only treated lobby groups such as the ACL as personal opinions of said groups instead of Christianity as a whole we'd have no problem but alas we treat the words of Pell and his ilk as representive of Australia because of that 60% who put a Christian religion down because there parents told them that despite them not being in church except for the funerals of the religious.

JohnnoH:

09 Aug 2011 3:09:09pm

I am Christian first, a Lutheran second. My God, King, Saviour and Big Brother is the Lord Jesus Christ. We are given governments to rule over for our own good, but governments cannot save us, because ALL governments fall, either by election or overthrow.

Fratelli:

hugh mungus:

09 Aug 2011 4:22:34pm

I can't speak for Catholicism, but I can assure you that there is a diversity of beliefs, within the Anglican Church. Anyone not realising that has not been paying attention to the very public debates over the ordination of gay clergy and other issues.

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 5:25:13pm

"we treat the words of Pell and his ilk as representive of Australia because of that 60% who put a Christian religion down because there parents told them"

What? Who on earth treats the words of Pell and his ilk as representive of Australia because of that 60%? When did any government ever do anything because Pell and his ilk wanted them to do it? Considering that most governments are elected by about 40% of the population, it's amazing that Pell and his ilk are so ignored by those in power.

And when did we become a nation of grown up mamma's boys who answer questions on a census based on what their parents tell them to do?

Its true the Anglicans are tearing themseleves apart over what the Anglican church's beliefs are or should be. But at least in the case of the Catholics, there is a very explicit, fulsomely spelt out, extensively publicised and well known set of beliefs which "Catholic" implies. It doesn't depend on the personal whims or fancies of whoever happens to be a pope or a bishop at any one time. Neither Pell nor anybody's parents nor anybody else forces anyone to write "Catholic" on the form or to become or remain a Catholic.

Luke:

Cap'n:

09 Aug 2011 1:05:01pm

True, but the same claim can be made about any group - religious or not.

So what is the actual point of your article? "I am a different type of atheist to other atheists out there"? This isn't exactly news. It could be rewritten as "I am a different type of <category> to other <categorists> out there" and not be any more meaningful.

Suzanne:

09 Aug 2011 1:05:10pm

I'm a little confused about what you are concerned about. You say: "But the Atheist Foundation's aim is to "take religion out of politics". Precisely what this means is left vague, but it nevertheless implies advocacy on my behalf, and it is with this that I'm uncomfortable."

It is not advocacy - though I daresay the Atheist Foundation can speak for itself on this. My understanding is that the current campaign is encouraging an honest assessment of membership of religions in this country, through a more considered response rather than the more sheepish ways people answered this question in the past. What is so wrong with thinking about what one really believes and then providing a realistic answer on the census? You are, yourself, vague about what the underlying motives of this could be. The sole motive, as I see it, is indeed to document accurately the decline (if that is what is happening) in organised religion. Since a certain amount of government money does support organised religious activities, isn't it a good idea to have some sense of how many people actually adhere to the religions that receive this money? The question, therefore, is about religion, not about personal spiritual beliefs, which are more to do with the private than the public sphere.

Like some other atheists, you choose to denigrate the so-called Four Horsemen. I think that is a pity. These writers and commentators have interesting and relevant things to say that are often drowned out by the endlessly repeated mantra that they are just "strident" religion haters. Their work has actually liberated many people to think for themselves and see the world a little differently - maybe even see the world as it is without the filter of supernatural fantasy. Since the world as it is is a wondrous and fascinating place, maybe that is for the best.

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 2:05:12pm

True the over-the-top, hate-filled rhetoric and barefaced lies of the Four Horsemen have actually liberated many people to think for themselves and see the world a little differently - resulting in the proportion of religious people going up and the proportion of atheists going down since they began their campaign.

Neily G:

09 Aug 2011 1:06:13pm

The language of some atheists is as extreme as that of the most fervent religious. The absolute denial of a god brings with it an intellectual intolerance that may be the germ of the very militancy that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al blame on believers. Surly the least susceptible to extremist views are those who are open to all views. The proselytizing of these atheists is akin to a contemptuous dismissiveness of the perspectives of others who don't hold their views.

Why doesn't the Census Form contain a box for "atheist" along with the other religions?

Neilly G:

09 Aug 2011 6:07:51pm

I don't care whether or not atheists want to call themselves a religion. I just want to be able to be sure that because I check the box 'no religion', unscrupulous groups do not count me as an atheist, just as I don't want to be counted as a Catholic or a Muslim.

vapour:

09 Aug 2011 1:06:20pm

I do not identify myself as belonging to any derivative of religious evolution.I do not have a religion.I am not religious.

I do believe in Jesus Christ, God's only son and deity himself - crucified and raised again to make accessible the path for imperfect man to be united with a perfect God.This does change everything about me; the way I think, the way I speak, the way I act.

Kim:

I think I think:

09 Aug 2011 5:02:09pm

Everything you know about this man is drawn from a religion. Unless you saw him arisen again in flesh and blood, and he taught you all you know - or you made it all up - you follow a religion and are religious.

mike:

09 Aug 2011 1:06:59pm

"For Dawkins, religious belief is to blame for terrorism." But the terrorists themselves, and their leaders, say this as well. Abu Bakar Bashir, when asked by an ABC reporter what Australians should do to prevent being targets of terrorism, responded "convert to Islam!" And that is just one of countless examples. So how can you even imply that Dawkins was incorrect in his assertion of obvious fact?

David:

09 Aug 2011 1:50:45pm

Some religious groups have been responsible for some terrorism. The likes of Stalin and Mao, both atheists, have also been responsible for horrible acts of terror of various kinds sanctioned by their governments. Should we then say that atheism is responsible for bad goverment?

I think the issue is more complex, as this article is pointing out. Yes some terrorism springs from religious groups but it not the exclusive domain of religion.

mike:

09 Aug 2011 5:32:34pm

Dawkins never said terrorism was the exclusive domain of religion, he just pointed out that religious beliefs are to blame for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism - as the terrorists themselves proudly proclaim! It is an indisputable fact.

Matthew:

09 Aug 2011 5:35:34pm

You will find the likes of Dawkins and co are actually not insinuating terrorism only comes from religion, but they are trying to make the point and shed some well-needed attention - on the elephant in the room, perhaps - of the obvious connection between religion and terrorism since it is dogmatism, otherwise known as an absolutist mind-set, that leads to such fanatical and dangerous behaviour. Dogmatism does not always come from religion, but a hell of a lot does. The only reason why Dawkins and co look like the villains they supposedly are is because it is taboo to criticise religion, which of course they are slowly changing :)

phooey:

09 Aug 2011 1:08:16pm

I intend to record my religion as "Atheism" and not "no religion". I intend to be spoken for. I resent that atheism is oft treated as an absence of belief of conviction, as "no religion" suggests. It is indeed a firm belief.

Pen Pal:

Fratelli:

MightyM:

09 Aug 2011 1:08:44pm

Its a mad, mad world in which we live; those with religion of the Christian brand spend heaps of time arguing that theirs is the one and only one true brand (even among themselves); those with religion of a non-Christian brand claim their brand is the only true brand; while even those with no brand can't agree whether that is actually one brand or several brands like "don't believe", "not sure" or "made up my own" - Think I'll stick with "Time Traveller"...

RD:

09 Aug 2011 1:10:21pm

Yes, the Atheists have had their way. Some people are ticking the No Religion box because they are not suficiently aligned with any of the Christian denominations. However, they are still quite happy to attend religious services and informal groups regularly run by churches. This is part of the softening of the lines between denominations. Someone told me they had written 'Optional' - well, that's not quite there is it?The religious belief of many people very often doesn't fit into the square boxes that denominational/ religious leaders may want people to assent to but belief is there & people do struggle with it. They DO want to believe and very often the leap of faith can be hard to take. In fact it just doesn't suit Rational Man. However once having taken that leap of faith, the struggles cease. We know the Census is a snapshot of the population in Australia, we know that direct adherence to churches is declining, that the Muslim population is increasing but it is true that some people who cannot define their faith are ticking the No Religion.

Greg W:

If we had our way the census would actually ask the questions the politicians are going to assume answers for with the census data.

For instance it would ask do you consider your religious beliefs to be: (And include the following answers along with the usual suspects)

* No Religion* Agnosticism* Atheism* Humanism* Rationalism

It would ask "Do you wish for federal and state governments to provide money to religious organisations to have access to your children while at school and attempt to subvert their beliefs while they are still at a formative stage of their awareness of the world?"

It would ask "Do you believe that religious organisations that are not in fact not-for-profit organisations focused on community aid should be entitled to not pay tax or do you think they should be taxed the same as any other business?"

Lets get a real census. One that actually asks the questions they are pretending to answer with this one.

Ru:

09 Aug 2011 1:11:05pm

Michael, atheism does not assert there is no god, it's the rejection of the belief in one. We don't believe in god because there is no reason to and there never has. There's nothing vague about secularism, laws should be based on the collective concensus of the people, not influenced religious interest groups like the ACL or conservative christians like Sen.Stephen Conroy or the Previous AG of South Australia, Michael Atkinson. It's fine if you want to sit on the fence and declare your 'atheism' as a private affair, the problem is that we can't get the religious to do the same. The function of religion has served its purpose. It's a little white lie that banded together groups of people for a collective power under a common law. We don't need it any more, we're entering a new age of discovery and enlightenment, lets put away childish things.

Greg W:

john byatt:

09 Aug 2011 1:11:21pm

meanwhile back on the blogs the christians are claiming that this all comes down to religion bashing and urging the token christians to tick one of the christian faiths lest the moslems take over the country,

Joe Bloggs:

Michael:

09 Aug 2011 1:13:30pm

The same argument holds for the adherence to any other form of belief. In recent times the debate among Anglicans about what it means to them and particular issues of doctrine has been enough to cause a schism in the church. I would imagine that what it means to be Catholic would cause disagreement. All levels of belief lie along a continuum rather than in discrete pigeon holes.

The reality is, however, is that it provides a snapshot of general beliefs of the population rather than a study of the philosophical standpoints of individuals. This data can be used to give an approximation of trends in Australian society. This is surely seen as a point of interest and relevant to the government and the population.

Fizz:

09 Aug 2011 1:13:32pm

Perhaps the problem is less the hijacking of "no religion" and the more great variety of interpretations that can be applied to it. I would tick the box as well, but, for me, God does not exist. Nor do I accept "the supernatural, or spirituality, or reincarnation, or karma, or the paranormal, or heaven and hell, or any number of alternatives" you mention.

I am as displeased as you that my "no religion" may be interpreted in a manner other than I would wish. It is statistics and provided no one tries to apply a narrow interpretation to the results of this broad question, little harm will arise.

Jane Does:

mac:

09 Aug 2011 1:18:27pm

I was tempted to put down "atheist" rather than "no religion", seeing as I strongly believe (but can't prove) there is definitely no God.

However I also strongly believe the unprovable stuff behind godless religions is bunkum too, so ultimately I decided that my belief system of rejecting the unprovable really didn't classify as a religion itself.

This is atheism as I see it, and I do get very annoyed when others conflate it with antitheism or antireligion, as I have great respect for many of the social wisdoms and sense of community common to many religions.

mac:

09 Aug 2011 3:23:05pm

After noting John's comment immediately below my own, that "Atheism" is considered by the ABS as a definite subset of "No Religion" (despite it having a clear belief component), I'll be making the appropriate edit tonight.

John:

09 Aug 2011 1:19:24pm

It's interesting to look at the full breakdown of the "No Religion" category in the "Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups, 2011", which the ABS uses for the religion question. Under the broad group of "No Religion" are the narrow groups of:

The non-religious can take comfort in the fact that the ABS is quite explicit in stating that no religion does not equate to atheism. An atheist that claims otherwise is either misinformed or deceitful. Hears hoping the next atheist that tries to makes such a claim is soundly and publicly refuted.

Cate:

Lev Lafayette:

09 Aug 2011 5:00:05pm

I suspect you're referring to c17th-19th century biblical unitarians. However, on a more contemporary level if you go to any of the member congregations of the Australian-New Zealand Unitarian-Universalist Association, or the North American Unitarian-Universalist Association and ask if they are Christian the most likely reply would be similar to "Not as such..."

what the:

Daniel:

09 Aug 2011 3:18:41pm

Thanks for that clarification.

I would still prefer to be able to provide more accurate information because I find 'no religion' kind of insulting as the wording suggests that It's not important to me or that I've not thought a lot about it. Still at least the ABS is realistic about how broad the category really is. Going to be no religion again for me this year.

mac:

Joyce:

Bob:

09 Aug 2011 1:19:26pm

Thanks Michael for you personal reflections on the religious question. These are my personal reflections on the religious question.

I am part of a church movement 'pentecostals' which are not even listed in the voluntary religious question. Pentecostals have a worldwide number of 166 million and are growing in various countries. In Australia, this group is made up of several afffiliations...all growing. The affiliation that I work with has 1,530 churches with a 2020 goal of having over 2 million worshippers in 2000 worship facilities. This requires identifying growth areas, land purchases, school developments etc etc.

Churches along with brothels are being moved to industrial areas because of parking, noise etc but also because of the lack of knowledge of religious affiliation, strength and need by local councils. Councils point to the census and say: religion is declining, therefore we don't have to plan for places of worship.

The census promotes itself an urban, city country planning and development tool for the future! It identifies trends etc great! But it is blind in some areas and unhelpful.

Tony:

09 Aug 2011 2:17:29pm

Actually, if you check the Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups, there are codes for Pentecostal and the affiliations making up that group. The boxes on the census form cover the most common categories, but if you write in another recognised affiliation, it will be recorded just the same.

Honest Johnnie:

axkman:

09 Aug 2011 1:21:03pm

Sorry, pushed the comment button too quickly. This is a very insightful and useful article. There is a lovely quote by Eric hoffer that goes, "The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not." My sentiments in a nutshell, and I think the strident antireligiosity of the so-called four horsemen of the anti-apolcalypse have done atheism a disservice. by being equally as strident.

Who really cares about religion? If Michael Collett wants to profess Pastafarianism or Jedi, good luck To him - I prefer the good old Aussie Calathumpian. So long as we keep it to ourselves, don't proselytise and for the sake of any gods we might choose to worship, keep it out of politics!

Ash:

The point is to stop politicians pandering to lunatic fringe religious groups & enforcing their morality on the rest of us.

It is about not giving religious groups disproportionate power to control any political debates, as they currently have.

Think of topics like abortion, euthanasia, sexual education in schools, ethics or comparative religion classes in schools, chaplains in public schools rather than qualified councilors - the list of government accommodation to Christianity at the expense of other religions & of non-believers is pretty long.

michael:

09 Aug 2011 3:21:27pm

And , moreover, let's not forget that religious organisations don't pay taxes WHY? ok as far as their charity arm is concerned , but all other income producing activities and assets( rates) should be taxed just like the rest of us!Also remember that the infamous internet filter is a demand of the christian right. If they want to filter the net they can do it at their own expense by buying the relevant software.Atheist don't lobby governments as far as I know. Perhaps it's time we unite and start doing it. we are atheist and we vote ( idea for a bumper sticker) we have the numbers to make governments think again before they pander to the religious zealots.

Peter:

09 Aug 2011 1:21:47pm

I would support a box for agnostic. In my view atheism is still too similar to religion as a beleif lacking clear evidence.

My view of being agnostic is you simply say 'there will never be enough evidence either way' so hang it all and just try to live a good life by you think is right. If there is a god then hopefully they are nice enough to see my point and appreciate my happiness despite not having specificaly worshipped them. If there isn't then what have I lost by leading a good life?

kamlem:

09 Aug 2011 2:06:03pm

I am an atheist. To say there will never be enough evidence is a presumption that requires evidence. If a deity or deities reveal themselves to me tomorrow I will believe. To discount this possibility is to claim you know something you do not.

Doctordoctor:

I think I think:

09 Aug 2011 5:18:12pm

That is an incorrect understanding of atheism. Atheists see no relevance in deities, they do not consider them. Religions are real, and should be considered in the context of their human decisions and the consequences of their actions. For an atheist, religions cannot hide behind the excuse that something that is not real told them they could behave the way they do.

You have no evidence for the existence of a lot of things, yet you do not make a concession for everything that might or might not be real. Agnostics consider the existence of deities, and thereby expose their belief in them.

toneburst:

09 Aug 2011 1:24:59pm

Well, yes, I suppose the statistical data from this particular question is open to any number of interpretations. But people will always take the interpretation that suits whatever argument they choose to make - it's in the nature of the statistical beast.

If, for example, 20% of people ticked "Catholic" for their religion, some would argue that it means 20% of people are opposed to abortion and contraception, or 20% are in favour of eating fish on Fridays. But we know that the one doesn't necessarily lead to the other.

There's no point stressing about what the Atheist Foundation, or anyone else, might say about the answer to that question - just be prepared to debate them in a rational way.

More to the point, let's ask why the options are so limited. "No religion", as you've pointed out, covers more than just atheism or agnosticism, so why not have a few variations listed, even if in broad terms? After all, "Christian" has sub-categories of Catholic, Anglican etc (does Islam have options for Sunni or Shi'ite? not sure on that, but they should).

Personally, I would have liked the opportunity to tick an "Atheist" box. I think it would show that I've thought about it enough to take a position, rather than "No religion" which implies that I just don't care.

Andrew C:

It is dissapointing to see someone who has the intelligence to throw off the yoke of superstition and religion be coralled into apologising for doing so because of the stigma theists attach to them.

It is the intolerance of theists that has lead not only to the myriad of religious wars and horrors around the world but also the theological war now being waged over atheism.

The right to speak out about your views as an atheists has been labelled as unacceptable, as offensive, yet people feel free to proclaim their religion as the one true religion at any place and at any time.

The census is clearly deficient, and Mr Collett is correct in saying that "no religion" is simply that, and should not be used to read anything further into the response. However, we atheists should not be apologising for our lack of belief, we should be celebrating it.

Do some research:

09 Aug 2011 1:30:34pm

Agnositicism is NOT a sub-category of Atheism. Atheism is Atheism.

Religion is an optional question on the Census form and you are free to ignore it or fill it in with the most appropriate response for you. If you don't want anyone or group using you response just ignore it and move along.

I will be writing Atheist on my form because a better understanding of the decline in traditional religious beliefs can only assist in reducing the pervasive influence that ALL organised religion has on a secular society like Australia.

rob1966:

I understand your sentiments, but I think you are reading more into the "no religion" campaign than is warranted.

This is not about being "anti-religion", but rather about obtaining an accurate representation of the influence of religion in modern society.

The various churches - predominantly Anglican and Catholic - lobby governments on social policy, and justify their lobbying on the basis of "we represent x% of Australians".

Now, if people blindy tick Catholic or Anglican (say) solely on the basis that they entered a church once when they were 11 this provides an unrepresentative view of the true influence of religion in this country; and on that unrepresentative view the major churches claim more influence than is properly due.

No one is saying that religious considerations should not be taken into account - of course they should, all of them - but only in conjunction with other viewpoints (eg atheism).

Progressive social policy in this country is being retarded by undue influence from the major churches - an accurate assessment of religious followers will allow governments to put that "influence" into perspective.

Lev Lafayette:

09 Aug 2011 5:05:48pm

Being "spiritual" is what gets you up from bed in the morning, apart from having an empty stomach or a full bladder.

It is your motivation in life, your sense of social integration with others, it is the ideas that move you to action, it is your sense of wonder with the world, and the inner communication with your conscience.

If you have those, you are a spiritual person - and not a philosophical zombie. If you don't, it is not at all surprising that it does not "compute".

Nota bene: Joyce was quite explicitly stating that atheists can be ethical.

Simon:

Another point to add here is there is a difference between an atheist and an anti-theist.

People who have a religion cannot prove there is a god or deity like an anti-theist cannot prove there is one.

An atheist is neutral to this position like the Queen of England is apolitical to Australian politics. As no one can make sense of why we are here, both sides of religion and anti-religious thinking are made up of psychological insecurities.

I think I think:

john kirrabilly:

09 Aug 2011 1:37:49pm

Getup routinely run a campaign called "not in my name". It is for when someone, anyone, claims to have the majority behind them when pushing some agenda (usually contraversial). For me, this is particularly true when neo-conservatives right wing groups masquerading as good Christen organisations claim that over 67% of Australia are Christen. For those who use a so-called religious majority (who are supposedly silent) to justify there own agendas, I will be selecting "no religion" because I say to them "not in my name".

Mitchell:

09 Aug 2011 1:38:11pm

Well said, - i agree that people seem to forget the meaning of atheism and see more as some great conflict between religion and science - all false dualities of mundane egos - which Richard Dawkins seems to be adding nothing of value to, his position is neither original nor enlightening.

I think I think:

john connor:

09 Aug 2011 1:41:55pm

Point of context: My three boys go to a public school that has a Chaplain. I have noticed over the past year that discussions relating to the God Of Abraham are sprining up more and more. I do not promote or quell spiritual discussion at home, i just do not want surruptitios god bothering to leak into my children's minds.

We all know what is out there in regards to belief systems, teach one, you MUST teach ALL. and also tech ethics as well!!!

pud:

09 Aug 2011 1:45:09pm

I prefer the term 'non believer' to that of 'atheist'. If you want to be labelled then at least do your own labeling. To me atheist is an offensive label used by those who only wish to negate my beliefs and make themselves feel all superior about their own. It's their label, not mine.

And since when is Pastafarianism a joke religion? I saw the flying spaghetti monster just last week in all his noodly appendage glory!

Sam:

09 Aug 2011 1:46:11pm

You can specify all sort of religions on the census form, but having worded the religion question leadingly in favour of religions, the census form hides 'no religion' box, tucked under the box for writing other obscure/minority religions. I was looking for it and it took me a second to find it. The layout also encourages people to write something silly - once you've scrolled your eyes past the annoying list of religions, you encounter a box for other entries and annoyed that the ABS has assumed you must be religious people write something silly like 'Jedi' in the box. The 'no religion' option should be a major and obvious option about the 'others' box. Not hidden away underneath. And perhaps rather than lumping all 'no religions' together they should start discriminating between atheists and agnostics.

Ronk:

Mitor the Bold:

09 Aug 2011 1:47:58pm

The 'no religion' box is all there is. It would be better if there was a 'belief in supernatural' question; but there isn't, so the AFA has to make do with what it has.

The idea that people consult religious texts - which, let's not forget, were written by men, on their own, thousands of years ago, largely in ignorance of the way the world works - when formulating public policy or making decisions about people in 2011 is shocking. This is what is meant by keeping religion out of politics.

We need to make decisions about humans and human societies with reference to humans; not to childish ideas about an Alice-in-Wonderland supernatural world.

Suz:

09 Aug 2011 1:48:13pm

Yes - atheist is simply the term used to describe someone as not believing in god. But that's where the similarities end - and this is the sentiment conveyed by the AFA.

The language in this article is misleading and leans toward a simplistic, divergent spectrum of two extremes - theists (represented here as the core world religions) and atheists (here as the AFA and represented by the Dawkins/Hitchens quartet). I think it unfair on both sides to simplify it in this way. The quotes used are pretty extreme and convey a distinct bias in their use!

Alterans:

Deb:

09 Aug 2011 1:56:15pm

Glad to see that someone else besides myself is perturbed by proselytising atheists...I don't need anybody to tell me what box to tick on my census form, least of all those who ought to know a lot better.

Dmac:

09 Aug 2011 5:45:16pm

No one is telling you what to tick. The AFA is encouraging people to be honest about themselves when filling out the census. Don't put down your parents religion if you don't believe in god (go right ahead if you do believe). Why are religious people afraid of the truth?

JasonJ:

I think I think:

09 Aug 2011 1:57:33pm

Michael, you obviously have not come to grips fully with your rejection of theism. You shouldn't lecture the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, or the Atheist foundation of Australia - it is you who have hitched a ride on their coat tails, with your claim that they somehow represent you.

But you are not an atheist. You have not cut your umbilical cord. There is a logical conclusion that in a reasonable world, the unreasonable has no place. You say you are an atheist, but you do not champion for the removal of church from state, for the equality of gays and women, for contraception in third world countries.

You say you are an atheist, and yet you stand in the way of true atheist organisations that actually stand up and fight for the rights of these people, abused and mistreated because of lies and fairy tales.

Brian62:

rayser:

09 Aug 2011 2:05:54pm

Whether deliberately or not, the wording of the religion question will give an inaccurate indication of the spread beliefs within the community. By relegating secular humanists, agnostics, athiests etc to a generic "other", inaccurate statistical information will be available to the extreme religious right, for example, to support their campaign to keep unqualified chaplains in State schools on a mission of proselytization. Also to oppose classes on ethics. Surely, to be objective, the Census form should have the word "religion" replaced with "belief system" & other widely held belief systems eg humanism, given their own box. The wording of the current Census form is clearly loaded to obtain a particular outcome (a bit like some polls).

Microseris:

David Nicholls :

09 Aug 2011 2:10:33pm

Michael Collett has climbed Mount Census without any reason except, presumedly, for a bit of having an opinion on the topic. Bad luck it didnt lead anywhere substantial. Maybe he feels a little sidelined by the new wave of rational thought attempting to make politics show a bit of guts in the areas of equality and fairness for all.

This is fairness and equality that religion, by divine right, will not concede it needs to give.

Whilst religion impacts negatively on many people and groups planetary wide and yes, even in Australia and costs enormous amounts of money to all taxpayers, Michael is suggesting that the opinions of the Atheist Foundation of Australia hasnt the support of most freethinkers.

By the way, many of the positions held by the AFA are also, by survey, agreed with by a majority of religious folk.

Here is your chance, Michael, instead of making oblique statements about what the AFA stands for that is so wrong, enunciate them. And please back it up with evidence.

kamlem:

09 Aug 2011 2:12:54pm

Yawn. Until there is evidence of a deity or deities, religious people should not force their delusions on others, whether through school chaplains or legalised discrimination that is illegal for secular people or organisations. This is not rocket science, nor is it extreme or radical in any way.

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 2:13:59pm

It should also be pointed out that many Christians, especially of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist type, tick "No religion" because in their opinion, "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with Jesus". However the government seems to ignore this and they translate "no religion" into "I won't mind if you unfairly discriminate against and persecute Christians".

I think I think:

Polly Prissypants:

09 Aug 2011 2:14:40pm

Atheist is a label necessarily ascribed to those who don't believe in any god purely because it is human nature to ascribe a label to pretty much everything. It is not a cause or a movement or a belief in itself.

I am an atheist in that I don't believe in any gods, and were it not for the fact that the last two governments (at least) have seemed determined to shove religion down my throat at every opportunity, I wouldn't even give it any thought.

I also don't believe in Santa, Easter Bunny, fairies, ghosts or vampires. The only reason I am not ascribed a label for these non-beliefs is because for some baffling reason, it is considered ridiculous for adults to believe in such things, and yet not so to believe in an old guy in the sky telling them how to behave.

Craig:

09 Aug 2011 2:16:00pm

Atheists are just another group pushing their world view. Why we can't embrace diversity in our pluralistic society I do not know. But what I do know is that the tone of the language used against people who profess faith, and against the faith they profess, indicates to me a little dose of religion wouldn't hurt them. Secular humanists, extreme religious groups, conservationists and conservatives can all be guilty of ugly and nasty rhetoric.

Damo:

09 Aug 2011 2:21:51pm

A fair comment (except that I think Hitchens is a leading mind of our times) - But why not apply the same logic to the established churches? - You write as if this behaviour is new and only the fault of those devious scheming atheists. Don't established religions assume to speak on behalf of all the people who tick Catholic, Muslim etc etc - they can equally NOT assume that all those people agree with ALL their beliefs and rules - and yet politicians effectively do exactly that - assuming that most Australians are 1. Christian and 2 do not support issues such as Marriage Equality - er um except they do.

Just apply the same logic to what we have put up with since Censuses (plural of Census?) began. Why... wasn't the census held by King Herod used for all sorts of purposes??????

Clownfish:

09 Aug 2011 2:22:12pm

Dawkins is correct: religion was the sole motivating factor in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden stated quite explicitly that the presence of infidels in the holy land was the sole cause of his war with the United States.

Science and religion *are* irreconcilable. Whether that amounts 'inexorably at war' is a matter of semantics, perhaps.

I'm also interested to where you find any errors in Hitchens' statement.

Andrew:

09 Aug 2011 2:24:09pm

Michael,

Your article leads me to believe that YOU haven't given this enough thought. It's all well and good to ramble on about the views of some athiests and what you think about their views, but isn't the issue more about what your choice in the religion box means to us as Australians?

For example, tax payer money goes to fund religious schools. If the majority of Australians aren't religious, then how does this funding justify itself.

So you might want to actually think about what your choice means when you tick that box, because it certainly means something to your government!!

alisterfish:

09 Aug 2011 2:32:40pm

Religion, in my opinion , is just a flash name for a club. [A club being a gathering of folk of like minds for a particular goal.] Our parents normally choose wether we join the Anglican , Catholic, Quaker, Mormon etc club at birth, so its a forgone conclusion. Clubs can tend to forget the reason for their being as years go by. I dont know much, but if Jesus was alive today he wouldnt be a Clubby, thats for sure!

Pedro:

09 Aug 2011 2:35:27pm

The options in this census of "No Religion", or "Other", precludes the recognition of the mass of the population who are "Non believers". They/we/I may hesitate to nominate as atheists, but certainly are not accurately described by "No religion".Perhaps this is the census that will demonstrate numerically that it is time to separate state and church in reality, rather than in pretence.

Adam:

09 Aug 2011 2:36:08pm

Good point. Perhaps 'No Religion' could be for the atheists and an alternate designation for the unspoken for. 'Agnostic' or 'Secularist' for example.

For my own two cents I'm with you. I'm an agnostic and couldn't care less about organised religion. I think there is a mistake by atheists to attack christianity (especially catholicism) to the exclusion of all other faiths. Atheism can, in some contexts, take on some aspects of a religion as well. Any unquestioning acceptance of authority is wrong, and religion can be justified in being called the ultimate form of totalitarianism in that it demands obediance to something that cannot be proven to exist.

Alterans:

09 Aug 2011 2:36:59pm

You can certainly mark "no religion" if you are not an atheist. From the http://www.whymarknoreligion.org/?item=13 site: If you mark "No religion" you simply assert that you follow no religion. This includes atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers without a belief in a deity, but can also include others who do not follow any particular religion.

JohnnoH:

09 Aug 2011 2:41:28pm

Well for a start an atheist is not a heretic. A heretic is one who uses specific pieces of Scripture and build a false doctrine around it, much like the fundamentalists. An atheist believes in nothing, that once you're dead you're dead and you are of no worth from craddle to the grave simply because you're nothing more than animal.

JD:

09 Aug 2011 2:43:02pm

The ABS website provides the following information, inter alia, in respect of the Census:

Why is it important?The Census underpins Australias democracy and is crucial to communities, private institutions and all levels of government when planning infrastructure, community services and facilities where you live. For example Census information helps to determine where schools, hospitals, and roads are needed.

Accordingly, I'm not certain how the Question about religion is relevant in this context, at least, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Dale Anderson:

09 Aug 2011 2:47:07pm

I think the Atheist foundation is right on in arresting control from the mainstream religions. I follow their facebook updates and it seems clear to me that they understand what 'no religion' stands for. The important thing is to achieve a balance of power that is more reflective of Australian society. At present, those who lobby the government on behalf of the Christian faith can use the census to indicate they have a far greater backing than what they do in reality.

When we have policy and laws that deviate strongly from what polls tell us Australians think, then we know our political systems is being distorted in favour of organised religion. It does not matter if you are spiritual or have some other philosophy that does not belong to a religion. What matters is that you don't lend your weight to a group that may advocate views or policies with which you disagree.

One further point, you have taken Dawkins out of context. He clearly explains his rationale and it is hard to refute but then, as you said, you don't want to debate that here.

Ray:

09 Aug 2011 2:49:42pm

I suggest that you re-read "The God Delusion" and this time pay more attention, Mr Collett. Dawkins explains clearly how he has been reluctantly forced into the anti-religious camp and in particular logically and dispassionately shows how he came to the twin conclusions that you and others pick from the book. That religion, by training children that there are some things one must just accept without thought or inquiry, sets children up with a blind spot which can make them useful tools for terrorists. To paraphrase, religion is like an intellectual rootkit. That the certainty of eternal torture if the child doesn't perform - and think - as instructed is emotional and mental abuse.Like you though, I do wish that we could just get on with "not believing in gods" without being lumped in with the big-A Atheists but on the other hand if you look hard you will notice that it isn't the AFA - abrasive as their leader is - pushing an anti-religious agenda. They are merely reacting to others pushing a religious agenda and asking for a the same consideration given to the sensibilities of the religious. Is asking that their children be merely _allowed_ to do something constructive while other children are undergoing religious indoctrination so awful? As for the chaplains - the AFA campaigns against our tax dollars being used now to place religious representatives in schools. And that's too militant for you?

nik r:

09 Aug 2011 2:51:01pm

There is an email doing the rounds at the moment imploring people not to mark the 'no religion' box- but instead- indicate that you are a Christian - so that you do not get a mosque built in your neighbourhood- a repulsive suggestion at best.So it seems that no matter what you mark- you are making a political statement.Perhaps there should be a 'I choose not to answer this question just in case I incriminate myself unfairly or involuntarily align myself with some persons or organisations that do not represent my spiritual views at all'.

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 3:23:32pm

Why is that a repulsive suggestion? Some commenters here have previously said on this page that they don't want a church built in their neighbourhood. Why is it repulsive to say the same thing about a mosque?

I think I think:

ST:

I consider myself non-religious, which is why I don't consider myself athiest - athiesm has become just another religion.

Think about it, like all religions, athiests have meetings. Most don't go, but the hard core "believers" do.

Like all religions, athiests have a wide spectrum of "believers" - from the people who live life happily, and live with other religion's people in peace, to those who will hate and belittle people for having a faith other than their own.

While I agree with them that having accurate numbers of Australians who are not religious will help keep religious proselysing within our secular schools, athiests are fast becoming the 21st century religion.

Trekka:

Mrs Kenwick:

09 Aug 2011 3:32:26pm

Me too, in our household we are all Jedi, have been since 2001. What started as an email reaction to the religion question has evolved into a real belief system for us. Who is to say that our imaginary friends can't count as well. Shame on the ABS for not recognising our uniqueness in 2011. Are they scared because we outnumber the Exclusive Brethren and might seek funding to build schools as well?

PB:

09 Aug 2011 3:02:43pm

Definitions: Atheism - doctrine that there is no god. Agnosticism - a position that there is no evidence for (or against) the existence of a higher being.There is a big difference. As a catholic, and a scientist, I acknowledge that my belief in God has no basis in science or "rational" thought. Just as there is no "rational" evidence to deny the existence of "God". So if you are going to be rational, be an agnostic, because you can't "prove" God's absence. If you are going to believe in a lack of God, you have as much right to do so as I do to disagree, but don't dress it up in "logic", just as those who dress religion up with "proof" are illogical.Having said all that, there is much good in many religions -"love thy brother" formalised into the Salvos, SvdP etc. And much nonsense & evil from the heirachy and those who use religion to cover hate - as a Christian, I follow the message of Christ, not that or the (in)actions of the current or any other pope.

Trekka:

09 Aug 2011 3:47:26pm

As a scientist you would surely agree that a negative hypothesis, that is, that the hypothesis can only be proved wrong by demonstrating that it does not exist is deeply weak. After all one can propose a vast list of such hypotheses that are all impossible to demonstrate other than in the in the negative, that is finding evidence that they don't exist. For example, I can hypothesise that the answer to everything is 43 and hold that until you can prove otherwise, that's where it stands.

For a hypothesis to hold water it must, at least in principle, be positively provable, that is by evidence. Therefore to hypothesise that God exists until someone prove otherwise is a very weak hypothesis indeed.

Jaaded:

09 Aug 2011 3:07:58pm

Not being aligned to either of these faiths I, not withstanding, disagree that "catholic" should be a choice. Anglicans assert they belong to or believe in the catholic church. Perhaps more honesty should have this category as Roman Catholic.

Simon:

09 Aug 2011 3:12:59pm

This would have been the perfect article if it had ended at "And so I'll do my part.". However, the illogical rantings that follow are usually spewed from the mouths of the religious, so maybe the author should have chosen another option.

Sam:

09 Aug 2011 3:15:39pm

How can you diss Dawkins etc for their opinions when they are clearly absolute fact?

"For Dawkins, religious belief is to blame for terrorism. "Even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes," he writes in The God Delusion."

Yes - that is absolutely correct.

Dawkins doesn't "blame" religion for terrorism he states that ANY level of religious belief HELPS provide the correct tools to turn people into freaks. Which is absolutely the case. Even if I was a Catholic priest I would openly admit that

"Dawkins also believes raising a child to believe in hell is mental abuse, and that science and religion are inexorably at war."

Michael:

09 Aug 2011 3:18:55pm

The issue is that religions are a very vocal bunch who push governments to make decisions in their favour. They try to be on every street corner reminding you that they are there and you need to respect that. People feel they have to treat the religious with some respect and this is what the churches rely on. Atheists on the other hand have no real organisation that does the same. Nature arbours a vacuum so the 4 horseman and the AFA feel that there has to be a counter point to put its case forward as strongly as any church insists its writes are heard. As Sam Harris points out, Atheism shouldnt even be a word. There is no word for non-astrologer. Its just that to make our point and present an equal viewpoint we have to make some noise.

socrates (1):

Matt:

09 Aug 2011 3:27:31pm

I think the term "New Atheist" is unfair and given to them by people with a religious axe to grind. I view Dawkins et al softly spoken and completely rational and I don't understand the hositility and bile they attract. I'm an atheist, and there's nothing new about it. There's been atheists from way before anyone made up any gods.

So many people are going to tick the box and say they are a person of some religious affiliation when they don't actually believe any of it. Those people should be true to themselves and tick the no religion. My girlfriend is a Jew. She is also an atheist. What does she tick? I was baptised Presbyterian, by my atheist parents, and they are going to tick Uniting Church even though they don't know anyone who still goes.

For all intents and purposes in my life and for many others religion is dead. An anachronism from a time before we had most of the answers.

Miowarra:

09 Aug 2011 3:28:19pm

"But the term 'atheism' has been granted meaning far beyond its dictionary definition and has come to represent hostility towards religion and a smarter-than-thou arrogance."

That's the opinion that the proponents of religion (and specifically of fundamentalist Christianity) have tried to propagate and have apparently succeeded. Yes, there are "miltant" atyeists, but far fewer in number and far less aggressive in their opinions and organisation than the theists who have been trying for some centuries now, to paint anybody who doesn't fall into line as being evil, confrontational and oppositional.

It's no more true today than it was when Bloody Mary was burning Englishmen who ddn't believe what they were told to believe. Most of us are more educated than that, today and can see through the sham of the shamans. But there's NO place for religious indoctrination of defenceless children in state educaton systems - that's not acceptable at all.

Ecologist:

09 Aug 2011 3:35:22pm

The AFA are perfectly aware that the no religion box belongs to the unspoken for, and this is actually the point of the campaign, a quite simple point that you appear to have missed. Currently, leaders and spokespeople for organised religions profess to speak on behalf of many people who disagree with their political machinations, if it is demonstrated to governmen that the majority of people, regardless of their personal belief align themselves with no particular religious institution, then the time and effort allowed this people to subvert democratic process will be diminished.

Noel:

Barney:

09 Aug 2011 3:45:31pm

Seems odd to me that Michael is so concerned about being tarred with the atheist brush of Dawkins/Hitchens and co.Would anyone putting down Prostestant or Presbytarian be concerned that they'll have Ian Paisley speaking for them? Or do Sunnis feel everyone will assume OBL spoke for them?I think not. Obviously there are reasonable people with faith and without faith.

As an atheist I think Dawkins and Hitchens are very interesting, but not the last word in "what it is to be an atheist". I also find their confrontational style sometimes a little hard too take. But I'm glad that there are "high profile" atheists who provoke thoughtful and spirited debate.

CharlieB:

09 Aug 2011 3:46:21pm

People come in a whole range of philosophical beliefs. Within any religion there are believers and fundamentalists and extremists. I don't find it surprising that within atheists there is the same range of expressions of philosophy.

Religious people believe there is a god, in fact many gods, while atheists accept there is no evidence for god and thus there is no god. A simple difference , but expressed in many levels of personal feeling.

Michael, you write of "Prime Minister Julia Gillard and conservative columnist Andrew Bolt, both of whom have expressed admiration for religious values." In my view they admire humanitarian values and have quite deliberately mis-labelled them for the sake of their own mis-information campaigns. They create an artificial divide based on a false assumption so as to belittle other views. Religion doesn't own these values, religion didn't create them. I am sure that as an atheist/agnostic you, and I, support these values just as much as any religious person.

perspective:

09 Aug 2011 3:48:30pm

so Hitler, stalin, pol pot, chairman mao, (these guys equal more deaths through war, persecution, then the rest of human kind in the rest of history) and are not religious and Hawkins never mentions them ? why is that?

CathyL:

09 Aug 2011 5:42:03pm

I suspect you have never read Dawkins or any other of the new atheists. They quite frequently mention the above people. They make very clear that it is not just god nonsense they are against but all forms of irrational nonsense enshrined in dogma. ]

As Sam Harris says "People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."

delbo:

09 Aug 2011 3:58:18pm

The census doesn't allow enough choices for questions like this. It should let you say you are religion x, but not practicing. Or what if you like two religions? Or what if you are religious, but only because your religion doesn't allow you to leave, ie forced religion. What about if you follow a philosophy? It's not a religion, but it's definitely a coded system of belief. So it's very much like a "religion" in many ways. Anyway Buddhism is a religion but doesn't have a god, for but one example.Or what if you like god, but choose not to worship god for now? How to categorise that?Or what about a box that lets you say "I want to do this optional question, but I refuse to confirm or deny my ideas about religion."What if you have a religion that is not recognised, or a religion that you invented yourself?Can one put "science" as a religion?Or put "I'm atheist but not linked to any atheist group or their angle on atheism?"All these parameters are possible, important, and explore the notion much better than these limiting statistical jousts in the dark.

Davo:

09 Aug 2011 4:02:03pm

The Atheist Foundation of Australia believes all government laws and policies should benefit all members of society, not just those who adhere to a particular religious faith - even when that religion holds a majority position. As such, all government decisions should be based on empirical evidence rather than religious beliefs. Inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception, self deception, and error. Logic and proper empirical method is the only way the whole world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything.

When the AFA say 'take religion out of politics' this is what they mean.

Gryffon:

09 Aug 2011 4:12:41pm

Well, maybe we need to add some new term to your holy book.

Clearly, you accurately describe the passion of the 'new atheists', like Hitchens aet al, for eradicating any and all wiffs of religeon in our society, but I fear "Atheist" is not an accurate nomenclature for their belief set.

Gordon:

09 Aug 2011 4:18:32pm

I really don't understand the problem. You can choose one of the "regular" religions, or you can write in your own. If you & your 2.5 fellow adherents can't think up a name for it I'll whisper you a secret: nobody else cares; it's your problem. If you think the whole lot is bollocks tick "no religion".

in short:1. read the question in plain English2. make the best answer you can3. go to next question

Honestly, if the census people had to customise the census for every possible micro-opinion & barrow-pusher in the land we'd never get it finished. Do you seriously want a tick box for "I have vague wooly spiritual feelings that involve no nameable practises, visible membership, or defined behaviours but which nonetheless make me feel, y'know, special?

Jimbo:

09 Aug 2011 5:27:00pm

Oh you don't see the problem. Obviously there is none then case closed.

Oh wait, that's utter nonsense. Let me spell it out for you.

We know for a fact that people are NOT answering the question correctly because the census results don't go anywhere near matching church attendance rates or public opinion polls conducted about religious issues.

But here's the real problem. These figures are taken at face value by the government when religious lobby groups to reinforce their campaigns that go against the actual beliefs of most Austrlalian's who blindly ticked the christian.

Travelingstu:

09 Aug 2011 4:28:55pm

Why take religion out of politics? Because we live in a secular country. Because when I hear our Atheist Prime Minister say "I think we should read our bibles" whilst referring to same sex marriages I want to throw up. In my mind the only reason why she said that is to appease the religious groups who currently believed to be about 40% of the population. If we can let the government know that in fact that this is not a correct number, that it is much smaller, will we have our political leaders holding up the bible in defense of their stance on discriminatory laws? I hope not.

James:

09 Aug 2011 4:37:15pm

The AFA's No Religion campaign isn't so much a plea for people to "Stand up and be counted as one of us" so much as it is a plea to people "Don't stand up and be counted as one of them unless you actually mean it"

The idea is not to get the government to "Give in to the demands of atheists because look: we're more numerous than you think" it is to get the government to "Stop kowtowing to "religious majorities" because they aren't as numerous as you think they are."

I think I think:

09 Aug 2011 4:56:59pm

Michael, you complain about atheist organisations that try to place the responsibility of our problems squarely at the feet of humanity.

In doing so you indulge those who see reward in death, and atonement tomorrow for their sins today. People who openly claim it is not theirs to judge their fellow humans, except if they are gay, women or just, you know...different.

Charles:

09 Aug 2011 4:57:23pm

"and a smarter-than-thou arrogance." - interesting the way you don't use "holier-than-thou", as if to completely draw attention away from the kind of people for whom the phrase was coined in the first place. Those poor Christians, taking the "oppressed minority" stance! Have you seen how atheists are treated in some parts of the world, in particular southern US states? If you tell someone you are atheist (which comes out in conversation, seeing as a common question is "which church do you go to?") it's like telling people you were gay in the 1980s. Verbal abuse in the street, disowned by your family...

PW:

09 Aug 2011 4:58:40pm

'take religion out of politics' is not left that vague at all. Perhaps you should take a look at the Athiest Foundation website.

Instead you raise a few inflammatory quotes that sound far less reasonable when taken out of context (my guess is that you googled the names for quotes and have not actually read their material - else it would be difficult to write this article at all).

ash:

James:

09 Aug 2011 5:07:09pm

Also: as an aside. I really dislike the term "New Atheist"

It's invariably used as a silencing tactic and people that do use it always use it to express a smug superiority to Dawkins et al. There really is nothing new under the sun though and this kind of tactic has been used against more than just atheists.

"I like well behaved women, not the loud shrill ones that have to cry sexism about everything"

"I have no problem with Gay people, I just wish they weren't so in-your-face about it, holding hands in public where children can see and putting gay characters on the television."

"I don't mind regular atheists, it's these 'New Atheists' who have the temerity to write BOOKS with actual WORDS that CRITICISE RELIGION! What is the world coming to? It's as if Atheists are allowed to have OPINIONS and stuff."

This sort of apologia is nothing new. There's a well known quote that a quick google search tells me is attributed to Laurel Thatcher Ulrich that goes something like "Well-behaved women seldom make history." I don't think it really needs elaborating on.

Ronk:

09 Aug 2011 6:29:29pm

The term "New Atheists" was invented by these men themselves. (And did you ever notice, the Four Horsemen like all vocal atheists are overwhelmingly male. And white, wealthy, Anglo-Saxon and of the Baby Boomer generation.)

Maybe they were trying to silnce themselves.

In fact there is nothing "new" in their arguments. Almost every "argument" in their books is astonishingly puerile and simplistic, and has been made and thoroughly refuted many decades, and in most cases even many centuries, ago.

jaydubya:

09 Aug 2011 5:30:24pm

You can't be both agnostic and atheistic. To be atheistic is to believe, absolutely, that there is no God. To be agnostic is to doubt that there is a God. Make up your mind!p.s. why do you use a capital G when you spell God?That is giving a proper name to something which, according to you, does not exist. Make up your mind!

Ronk:

no religion:

09 Aug 2011 5:50:47pm

My parents were both Jews, both escaped the Nazis in Germany in WW2 and were refugees that came to Australia, eventually.

I was repeatedly told by both parents never to reveal to any government, or government department, my religion, beliefs or ethnic background, because this information could be used to oppress or murder, just as it was used against the Jews in Europe.

This is also the reason many Jewish people anglofied their names.

Ones spiritual beliefs, or unbelief, are nobodies business, but the individuals.

gorlassar:

09 Aug 2011 5:52:47pm

So, raising a child to believe in Hell, in which you clearly do not believe, is NOT child abuse? Considering that that terror will continue most likely for that child's ENTIRE LIFE? Mate, if you have no religion, you're an atheist - anything else is just intellectual posturing until the deathbed recantation. Oh - and please define "religious values".

Steve:

09 Aug 2011 6:01:28pm

It may be a little off topic but when are the powers to be going to realise that Anglican, Baptist, etc etc etc, are not religions !! It peeves me every five years to be asked what religion I am and those are my choices................for goodness sake even the average joe on the street knows that they are denominations of the CHRISTIAN religion!

They are not religions in their own rights. Maybe in 5 years time the form will be changed to reflect the fact.....but probably not. The choices should include Christian, etc etc etc

Bruce:

L:

09 Aug 2011 6:08:23pm

This is laughable. It's like not wanting to put "Christian" on the census for fear of being lumped in with the likes of Fred Phelps. Virtually any religious/irreligious denomination has crazies who give the group a bad name, or political people who'll manipulate the stats for their purposes. If this bothers you, don't whinge about atheism, because your issue is with the recording of these details in the first place.

lynne:

09 Aug 2011 6:15:37pm

Firstly, just to reply to a blogger here who asked a question about school chaplains. I am terrified of untrained chaplains being placed in schools. I have first hand knowledge of a boy trying to "come out" and wanted advice from a school chaplain. He was told he would get over it and it was wrong or similar. They have no idea of homosexuality and the fact people are born that way. These young men and women are struggling, and the attitudes of these religious lead to confusion and sometimes suicide. Now, to get back to the point, we should put atheist down in the census if we do not believe and agnostic if not sure...do it...atheists have to stand up for their rights and profess their belief or non-belief just the same as others profess their form of belief system. It is about time atheists were allowed to say what they are, without judgement or discrimination as has happened in the past.

Cameron:

09 Aug 2011 6:32:43pm

Get religion out of politics - so that the clerical and theocratic lobby groups don't have so many excessive privileges and can demand so much of our government to govern Australian citizens in a way that is contrary to the desires and values of modern Australians. Australia is a major tax haven for religious groups around the world. Their collective megaprofits would be counted in the billions easily, all tax free and yet they demand more and more privileges. They demand that they have access to our children through the secular education system regardless of weather we or our children are religious or not and regardless of weather we like it or not. They stand against the majority of public opinion on issues of a woman's right to choose, on euthanasia, on censorship, on various different issues and enough is enough. They were not elected to represent us and are not accountable to us so they shouldn't have the power to make decisions about how we should live.

LI:

09 Aug 2011 6:36:48pm

Here we go again-'the chaplains are forcing kids to be christians, and secretly brainwashing them' as though school doesn't do that enough with its own belief system-i.e secular humanism. I guess its a case of take your pick. Really you people should grow up. And just by the way, most self respecting true believers wouldn't be seen dead in a government chaplaincy job with all the restrictions imposed.So take a pill and turn your focus to the falling immoral chaotic world about you at an astonishing rate. Welcome to the atheistic paradise

yerfdoggy:

09 Aug 2011 7:20:16pm

The enemy of civilization is ignorance. Religion is ignorance personified and given creditability (confusion of emotion with logic). Hence religion is the enemy of civilization. All religion is advocacy of ignorance above rationality, hence all religion is evil.

dean:

Brettah:

09 Aug 2011 7:48:44pm

Don't worry too much. It's more the specific "Atheist" label that will count towards the the numbers that AFA will claim to speak for. So long as you just wrote "No Religion", it should be pretty clear that they don't necessarily speak for you.No Religion should adequately communicate your indifference.